Mark Mather
Population Reference Bureau
Patricia Foxen
National Council of La Raza
April 28, 2010

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Foreword
Executive Summary
Introduction
Population Trends and Geographic Distribution
Nativity Status and Citizenship
Generational Status of Latino Children
Citizenship
Children in Immigrant Families
Family Structure and Income
Family Structure
Low-Income Families
Low-Income Working Families
Housing Affordability
Education and Language
Maternal Education
Linguistic Isolation
High School Completion
Student Achievement
Health
Teen Pregnancy
Overweight and Obesity
Children without Health Insurance
Children with a Medical Home
Juvenile Justice
Conclusion
Endnotes

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank several colleagues who have provided
invaluable input and guidance throughout the development of this
data book. From the Population Reference Bureau, the authors thank
Linda A. Jacobsen, Vice President of Domestic Programs. From the
National Council of La Raza, the authors thank Eric Rodriguez, Vice
President, Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation; Liany Arroyo,
Associate Director, Education and Children’s Policy Project; Sarah
Dolan, Project Coordinator, Education and Children’s Policy Project;
and Sara Benitez, Research Analyst, Office of Research, Advocacy, and
Legislation. Thank you to Kara Ryan, Research Analyst, Health Policy
Project; Catherine Singley, Policy Analyst, Economic and Employment
Policy Project; and Nayda Rivera-Hernandez, Senior Research Analyst
for their input early on in the project. Many thanks as well to Kari
Nye, Assistant Editor and Rodrigo Alvarez Muñoz, Graphic Designer/
Production Coordinator for their help and patience in preparing this
data book for publication.
NCLR is grateful to the Atlantic Philanthropies, Wellspring Advisors,
LLC, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation whose generous support and
vision made this work possible. The views and conclusions of this
report are those of the authors and NCLR alone and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of our funders.

i

Foreword
Latino children and youth should be a top priority for all Americans
concerned about our country’s future. Currently, one out of five
American children is Latino, and it is estimated that by 2035,
one-third of the child population under age 18 will be Latino. The
rapid increase of our Latino child population over the past two decades
attests to a major demographic shift in the U.S. In addition, a full
92% of Hispanic children and youth are U.S. citizens. This growing
population thus represents a significant portion of our future workers,
taxpayers, parents, citizens, voters, and leaders. Latino youngsters
are household and community influencers who—given their potential
English-language fluency, familiarity with American culture and
institutions, and exposure to mainstream media—are poised to lead
the successful integration of Latinos into U.S. society. Clearly, investing
in Latino children and youth is essential to ensuring that they are
healthy, educated, and confident; their well-being is fundamental to
our nation’s future.
Last year, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) convened a highly
successful forum titled “Investing in Our Future: The State of Latino
Children and Youth,” in order to better understand some of the
challenges and barriers that Latino children face. While a number
of positive developments in the situation of Hispanic children and
youth were examined at this convening—including increasing
college attendance and better access to health care—there was a
broad consensus that improvements in these areas are too slow,
and that a significant portion of Latino children are struggling in
contexts characterized by poor neighborhoods, underresourced
schools, inadequate nutrition, and highly punitive immigration and
law enforcement policies. One of the outcomes of that forum was

this data book. The data book was produced in partnership with the
Population Reference Bureau and aims to clearly assess the state of
Latino children through the compilation of current, regularly updated
national and state-level data.
This unique document, which provides a broad, comprehensive view
of Hispanic child well-being around the country and over time, makes
it clear that not only do Latino children face many of the difficulties
experienced by other poor and minority youth, a large portion also
cope with the challenges inherent in being children of immigrants.
At NCLR, we know what a crucial difference informed and effective
policy and program initiatives can make in the lives of children. We
also know that our youth are strong and resilient and can thrive with
adequate support and equal opportunity. We urge the readers of
this data book to join us in advocating for a better future for Latino
children, and we hope that the information provided here will serve as
a tool for all those who seek to join us in this fight for America’s future.

Janet Murguía
President and CEO
National Council of La Raza

ii

Executive Summary
The demography of our nation is changing at an accelerated pace.
Over the past 20 years, the number of Latino children under age
18 living in the United States has doubled, making them one of
the fastest-growing segments of the national population. By 2035,
one-third of all American children and youth will be Latino, and it is
projected that by 2050, one-third of the overall population will be
Hispanic. Today’s 16 million Latino children and youth—92% of whom
are U.S. citizens—thus represent a crucial segment of our country’s
future workers, taxpayers, parents, citizens, voters, and leaders.
This data book, produced by the National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
and the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), is the first publication
of its kind to offer a comprehensive overview of the state of Latino
children by integrating a range of key factors and outcomes in the
areas of demography, citizenship, family structure, poverty, health,
education, and juvenile justice. It provides an overview of current
national and state-level trends for Latino children under age 18
relative to non-Hispanic White and Black children, documenting both
regional variations and changing trends since the year 2000. The
data described in this document tell a compelling but unfortunately
alarming story, pointing primarily to the numerous obstacles and
inequalities that currently impede Latino children’s paths toward a
successful adulthood and that may hinder the broader integration of
Latinos into U.S. society if left unattended. Some disturbing national
trends revealed in the report include the following:
• Despite a predominantly hardworking adult population, the
majority of Latino children continue to live in poor and lowincome families; many live in high-poverty neighborhoods
that are socially and economically isolated from more affluent
communities. Although Latino children make up 22% of the total
population under age 18, they account for 33% of all children living
in poverty. It is projected that by 2030, 44% of all poor children

will be Latino if the trend remains constant. Moreover, 59% of
Latino children live in low-income families, which is more than
twice the proportion of White children in such families. Children in
low-income families have worse health and educational outcomes,
are more likely to live in single-parent homes, and are more likely
to experience violent crime, compared to children in more affluent
families.
• Most Latino children are U.S. citizens, yet a majority live in
immigrant families, which often results in significant barriers
to services and the potential separation of children from their
parents. While 92% of Latino children are U.S. citizens, 58% of
all Latino children live in immigrant families with at least one
foreign-born parent. Having an immigrant parent can prevent
children from accessing important benefits to which they are
eligible, including education and health services; this is especially
true for children of undocumented parents who may fear contact
with federal and state agencies. Moreover, many children
of both legally residing and undocumented parents live with
the continuous fear of their parents’ possible incarceration or
deportation.
• Latino children are disadvantaged in the educational system
early on, and only 55% graduate from high school with a regular
diploma. Latino children are currently underrepresented in early
childhood education programs, placing them at a disadvantage
early on relative to other children, particularly if they do not live
in English-dominant households. By the time they reach eighth
grade, 42% score below basic reading levels. Only 55% of Latino
youth and 51% of Black youth who enter ninth grade complete
twelfth grade with a regular diploma, compared with about 76%
of Whites. Teenagers who drop out of high school are at a severe
disadvantage in terms of future employment opportunities and
potential earnings.
iii

• One out of five Latino children—primarily children of
immigrants—does not have access to health insurance. While
in many respects healthier than other children, Hispanic
children are faring significantly worse than other racial/ethnic
groups on several important health indicators, including teen
pregnancy, childhood obesity, and access to health care. In 2008,
19% of Latino children lacked health insurance, compared with
10% of Blacks and just 7% of Whites. Children without health
insurance are 18 times more likely than children with continuous
private health coverage to have unmet needs for medical care.
In addition, in 2008, 41% of Latino and Black children were
overweight or obese, compared with 27% of White children,
putting them at high risk of diabetes, asthma, cardiovascular
disease, and other health problems.
• Latino children and youth are disproportionately represented
in the juvenile justice system and are increasingly placed
in adult facilities. There is a conspicuous lack of current,
comprehensive, nationwide juvenile justice statistics for the Latino
youth population. Nonetheless, in 2006, there were more than
19,000 Latino youth incarcerated in the United States, mostly for
nonviolent offenses. Based on current incarceration rates, about
one in six Latino males—and one in three Black males—will be
imprisoned at some point during their lives.
Clearly, it is within our nation’s interest to make sure that Latino
children are safe, healthy, and educated, and have the same
opportunities to excel and contribute to our national well-being as all
other American youngsters.

of integration. Latino children in new immigrant gateway states of
the Southeast, for example, which have experienced a very rapid
increase in first- and second-generation Latino children over the past
ten years, have high numbers of children in low-income families and
linguistically isolated households, but also lower rates of overweight
and incarceration, relative to several states with more established
Latino communities.
The data book also points to some overall positive trends for Hispanic
children. Maternal education, for example, which has a significant
impact on child well-being, has sharply increased over the past decade.
However, the overall picture presented here shows clearly that Latino
children, who represent a vital part of our country’s future, are in
need of significant help. Given the rapid pace at which the Hispanic
child and youth population is growing, and the fact that the Latino
population is one of our most youthful, hardworking, and enthusiastic
assets, it is imperative to find solutions to the problems signaled by
these numbers. Reversing these alarming trends is achievable through
a swift, targeted, and comprehensive approach focused on greater
investment in policy and program initiatives that have been proven to
enhance children’s lives in the various areas discussed here.
A web version of the data book, which provides raw and regularly
updated data for each of the state-level indicators described, also
serves as a research and advocacy tool for those seeking to delve
further into the information presented here. Data can be accessed and
downloaded at www.nclr.org/latinochildwellbeing.

In addition to describing more than 25 indicators of Latino child
well-being at the national level, the data book also reveals the wide
diversity of the Latino child and youth population across the country,
with many of the indicators varying considerably across states and
regions, and perhaps even more significantly by generation and degree

iv

Introduction
There are more than 16 million Latino* children† under age 18 living
in the United States, and nine out of ten are U.S.-born citizens. Since
2000, the number of Latino children has increased by 30%, and their
numbers have doubled since 1990, making them one of the fastestgrowing segments of the U.S. population.1 Hispanic youth—our future
workers, voters, taxpayers, and consumers—are poised to become a
critical factor in the country’s economic, social, and political well-being.
The Hispanic American population is marked by its social strengths,
including cohesive families and communities, a youthful population, a
commitment to the health and welfare of their children, and a strong
work ethic.2 However, Latino children also face unique and substantial
challenges, and their circumstances can vary widely depending on
their generational status, citizenship, family structure, education, and
English-language ability. There are also important regional and statelevel differences in the health and well-being of Latino families, with
implications for policymakers trying to improve outcomes for Latino
youth.
This data book provides an overview of national and state-level
differences and key trends since 2000 in the well-being of Hispanic
children. The circumstances of Latino children are compared with
those of White and Black children to identify disparities across
racial/ethnic groups and areas in need of improvement. The first
section of the report covers basic demographic trends and the

geographic distribution of the Latino youth population. The remainder
of the report, divided into five sections, covers several key areas of
well-being and “risk factors” for Latino children and families: nativity
status and citizenship, family structure and income, education and
language, health, and juvenile justice.
Our goal in producing this report is to highlight areas of concern that
must be addressed by our policies and programs in order to ensure
the well-being of current and future generations of Latino children.
Attending to the needs of these children will certainly lead to improved
opportunities for Latino communities. On a broader scale, moreover,
the situation of Hispanic children and families is inextricably bound to
the success of our entire nation, as underscored by this report.

Population Trends and Geographic Distribution
Latinos are the largest minority group in the country, and their
numbers are projected to increase rapidly relative to Whites and
Blacks in the coming decades. Today, Hispanic children account for
more than one-fifth (22%) of children under age 18, and by 2030, they
are projected to make up nearly a third (31%) of the child population
(see Figure 1). Whites, who currently make up 56% of the population
under age 18, are projected to drop below 50% of the child population
in 2023, and could make up only 46% of the population under age 18
by 2030.3

* The terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” are used interchangeably by the U.S. Census Bureau and throughout this document to refer to persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central and South
American, Dominican, Spanish, and other Hispanic descent; they may be of any race.
†In this report, “children” are classified as those under age 18; the terms “children” and “youth” are used interchangeably. Unless otherwise specified, the data presented for Whites and Blacks
exclude persons of Hispanic origin. Most of the data in this report are derived from federal data sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the National Center for
Health Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Estimates are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error. Survey-based estimates are generally
only presented for states with sizeable Latino populations or at the regional level in order to improve the reliability of the data. NCLR’s website includes an online version of this report as well as
detailed state-level data tables for each of the variables presented here. The online data tables compare recent state-level trends among Latino, White, and Black youth. Data are presented in a series
of Excel files and are available for download on www.nclr.org. The tables are updated as new data become available.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual State Resident Population Estimates for 6 Race
Groups (5 Race Alone Groups and One Group with Two or more Race Groups) by Age,
Sex, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008.” Washington, DC, 2009, http://
www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html (accessed September 2009); National Center
for Health Statistics, “Bridged-race intercensal estimates of the July 1, 1990–July
1, 1999, United States resident population by county, single-year of age, sex, race,
and Hispanic origin.” U.S. Census Bureau with support from the National Cancer
Institute. Washington, DC, 2004, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race/data_
documentation.htm#inter1 (accessed September 2009); U.S. Census Bureau, “Projected
Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States:
July 1, 2000 to July 1, 2050.” Washington DC, 2009, http://www.census.gov/population/
www/projections/downloadablefiles.html (accessed September 2009).

While the number of Latino youth has increased sharply since 2000,
the number of White and Black youth has declined (see Figure 2). In
fact, the total population under age 18 in the United States would have
declined between 2000 and 2008 without the population increase of
Latino youth. As of 2008, there were 16.1 million Latino youth living in
the United States, compared with 10.5 million Black youth, 41.6 million
White youth, and 5.8 million children in “other” race groups, which
include American Indians, Asian Americans, and other groups.4

30%
18%

2%
-6%

Total
Latino
Child
Population

White

-2%

Black

Other

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual State Resident Population Estimates for 6 Race
Groups (5 Race Alone Groups and One Group with Two or more Race Groups) by Age,
Sex, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008.” Washington, DC, 2009, http://
www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html (accessed Sept. 25, 2009).

The sharp contrast in population growth rates among different
racial/ethnic groups reflects two main factors. First, relatively high
levels of immigration from Latin America have contributed to a young
age structure in the Latino population, compared with other racial/
ethnic groups. Immigrants tend to be young, which creates population
momentum through a large number of births. In 2008, more than a
third of the U.S. Latino population (34%) was under age 18, compared
with 28% of Blacks and only 21% of Whites. Second, the fertility rate
among Latinas is 3.0 births per woman, compared with 2.1 births per
woman among Blacks and 1.9 among non-Hispanic Whites.5 In the
United States, “replacement-level” fertility, or the rate needed for
children to replace their parents in the population, is around 2.1 births
per woman.

2

Historically, the Latino population has been highly concentrated in the
Southwest and West, and in a few metropolitan areas outside these
regions, such as Chicago, Miami, and New York. But increasingly,
Latino families are dispersing to other parts of the United States,
especially the South.* As of 2008, about 14% of the total Latino
population had arrived in the United States during the previous ten
years. However, in several states in the South, including Alabama,
Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi, and South Carolina, more than
30% of Latinos had arrived within the previous decade.
Map 1
Change in Latino Youth Population, 2000 to 2008

Percent Change

Less than 25%
25% to 49.9%

50% to 99.9%
100% or more

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual State Resident Population Estimates for 6 Race
Groups (5 Race-Alone Groups and One Group with Two or more Race Groups) by
Age, Sex, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008.” Washington, DC, 2009,
http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html (accessed September 2009).

Nine of the ten states with the fastest-growing populations of Latino
children between 2000 and 2008 were also located in the South (see
Map 1). South Carolina had the fastest growth, with a 150% increase
in Latino children since 2000. In contrast, the states with more
established Latino populations experienced much slower growth: The
number of Latino youth increased by only 4% in New York and 6% in
New Mexico since 2000. New Mexico is the only state where Latinos
made up a majority (55%) of the population under age 18 in 2008.
However, California is next in line to pass the 50% threshold.
Of the 16 million Latino children in the United States, over half (55%)
still live in just three states—California, Florida, and Texas. And despite
the recent dispersal of Latino families to new destinations, just four
states—Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas—account for 50% of
the increase in the Latino youth population between 2000 and 2008.
These figures are important because they show that Latino families
remain highly concentrated in traditional “gateway” states. Cities
in these states have served as important destinations for several
generations of immigrants and have the largest Hispanic communities
in the country. “New gateway” states—those such as South Carolina
which have experienced extremely rapid immigration growth over
the past ten to 15 years and tend to have more suburban immigrant
settlement patterns—are also important. The issues faced by first- or
second-generation Latino children in those areas may, however, be
very different from those confronting youth living in more established
Latino communities.6
The Census Bureau projects that the number of Latino children could
increase to more than 27 million (nearly one-third of the population
under age 18) by 2030. However, future trends in Latino population
growth are uncertain. The latest population estimates from the Census

* In this report, states are grouped into four regions according to categories defined by the U.S. Census Bureau: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. We also make reference to some of the census
divisions that subdivide the four regions: New England, Mid-Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific. For
information about which states are included in each of these geographic areas, visit the Census Bureau’s site at www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf.

3

Bureau show that Latino population growth has dropped below the
peaks reported earlier in the decade;7 this slowdown could diminish
U.S. racial and ethnic change in the coming years (see Box 1).
Box 1
Recent Immigration Trends
The slowdown in Latino population growth reflects the recent
decline in international migration to the United States. At the
beginning of the decade, the Census Bureau estimated net
international migration at about 1.2 million per year. Since the
onset of the recession, that annual number has been revised to
less than 900,000. Because a large number of immigrants to the
United States arrive from Latin and Central America and Mexico, a
sustained drop in immigration levels could slow the pace of Latino
population growth.
Although the causes of changes in international migration
patterns are complex, this recent decline in immigration to the
U.S. may be a byproduct of several recent trends, in particular
the loss of jobs in construction, manufacturing, and other lowerwage sectors that are often filled by recent immigrants (especially
Latinos), and the changing political climate and public sentiment
following the September 11, 2001 tragedy, which has led to
heightened U.S. border security.

Nativity Status and Citizenship
Latino children whose families have resided in the United States
for several generations face fewer economic and cultural barriers
compared with those who are more recent arrivals. First- and second-

generation* Hispanic children are more likely to be poor and reside
with parents who did not graduate from high school and who have
difficulty speaking English.8 Having an immigrant parent may also
hinder childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to access important benefits to which they are
entitled, including education and health services. This is especially
true for children of undocumented parents who may avoid contact
with federal and state agencies out of fear of being deported.9 In
addition, U.S. citizen children of both undocumented and legal
immigrants often live in deep fear of permanent familial separation
or deportation.10,11 The subset of Latino youth who were themselves
born outside of the United States face additional challenges. Foreignborn Hispanic youth have higher poverty rates, are less likely to speak
English well, have higher dropout rates, and are more likely to become
teen parents, compared with second- or third-generation Latino
youth.12
Yet research has also shown that acculturation brings its own
problems, as third-generation Latino children fare much worse on
certain indicators (health problems, living in single-parent families)
compared with first- and second-generation Latino youth.13 These
generational differences contribute to the disparities in the well-being
of Latino children residing in different parts of the country and have
important implications for policymakers.
Generational Status of Latino Children
In 2008, only 9% of Latino children were first-generation U.S. residents,
but nearly half (49%) were second-generation U.S. residents with at
least one parent born outside of the United States. About 42% were
third-and-higher-generation U.S. residents. The share of third-andhigher-generation Latino youth has increased during the past three
decades and is projected to increase further as the size of the native-

* In this report, first-generation Latino children are classified as those who were born outside of the United States. Second-generation children are those who are U.S.-born, but who reside with at
least one parent born outside of the United States. And third-and-higher-generation Latino children include those who are U.S.-born and live with U.S.-born parents. Data on generational status are
from the Census Bureauâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s American Community Survey, which does not provide information about the nativity status of parents who are living outside of a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residence.

born Latino population increases over time. However, the generational
status of Latino youth varies widely across different parts of the United
States (see Map 2).
In 2008, states in the southeastern United States had the highest
proportions of first-generation Latino children. Recent immigrants
to these states have been attracted by jobs in poultry processing,
furniture manufacturing, and commercial agriculture,14 as well as
construction and service jobs associated with recent population
growth in the region. Second-generation Hispanic children were
most highly concentrated in North Carolina and the Mid-Atlantic and
Pacific Coast Regions. Many of the parents of these youth arrived in
the United States during the late 1990s, a period of particularly strong
economic growth. Third-and-higher-generation Latino children had
the highest concentrations in the Northeast and several states in the

5

Northern Midwest and Mountain West. The Northeast includes many
families and children from Puerto Rico who are U.S. citizens by birth.
In the South, Louisiana and Mississippi also stood out from neighboring
states because of their high proportions of third-and-higher-generation
Latino youth populations.
These regional differences in generational status are important
because they can help explain the diverse characteristics and policy
needs of Latino youth living in different parts of the country. In
general, first- and second-generation Latino youth have worse
educational and economic outcomes than children whose families
have lived in the United States for several generations. However,
generational status is not always a good predictor of state-level
outcomes. For example, Maryland has a much higher proportion of
first- and second-generation Hispanic children (75%) compared with
Connecticut (34%), yet Latino children in Maryland are more likely to
live in married-couple families and less likely to be poor, compared
with Connecticutâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Latino youth population.
Citizenship
One of the ways generational status affects outcomes for Latino
children and families is through its close association with citizenship.
In the United States, citizenship provides the right to vote and hold
elected office, access to services provided through the federal
government, the ability to travel freely to other countries, and
protection from being deported.15 Citizenship is either conferred to
persons who were born in the United States or acquired through the
naturalization process.
Among the 31 million Latinos ages 18 and older living in the United
States, only 63% were U.S. citizens in 2008. This means that more
than one-third of the voting-age Latino population is ineligible to vote
because they lack citizenship. In contrast, 91% of Latino children under
age 18 were born in the United States, and 92% are currently U.S.
citizens.16

The share of Latino youth who are U.S. citizens has increased with the
growth of the Latino population living in the United States. Since 2000,
there has been a five percentage point increase in citizenship rates of
Latino youth. It is expected that citizenship rates will increase even
further as Latino youth become adults and start families of their own.17
Citizenship rates among Latino youth still trail those of White children
(99%) and Black youth (98%), but this gap is expected to narrow over
time.
There are substantial state-to-state variations in the citizenship rates
of Latino children, which reflect current and historical immigration
trends in different parts of the United States. States with the lowest
rates of citizenship are located in the South (see Map 3). Alabama
and Delaware, neither of which have large Latino communities, have
the lowest citizenship rates among Latino youth (83% each). States
with the highest citizenship rates also have relatively small Latino
populations, including Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota. In the
Northeast, high rates of citizenship reflect the large number of Latino
families of Puerto Rican descent. More than a third of Latinos in the
Northeastern United States (36%) are Puerto Rican, compared with 5%
of Latinos in the rest of the United States.18 Among states with large
Latino youth populations (100,000 or more), Connecticut, New Mexico,
and Pennsylvania have the highest citizenship rates (95% each), and
Georgia and North Carolina have the lowest rates (86% each).
The rapid rise in citizenship rates in several new-frontier states has
been striking. In Georgia and North Carolina, the share of Latino
children who are citizens increased by 12 percentage points in each
state in just eight years. There was a five percentage point gain in
Tennessee and an eight percentage point increase in South Carolina.
Among states with the fastest-growing Latino populations, Alabama is
unusual because the share of Latino youth who are citizens dropped
between 2000 and 2008, from 86% to 83%. This suggests that most
of the Latino population growth in that state, which has relatively few
Latino families, resulted from immigration from Latin America rather
than births.
6

Map 3
Latino Youth Citizenship, 2000 and 2008
A. Latino Children Who Are U.S. Citizens, 2000

Children who are first-and second-generation U.S. residents are
commonly grouped together into a single category of “children in
immigrant families.” For children in immigrant families, parental
education, English-language ability, and the circumstances of their
migration to the United States—for example, as refugees, agricultural
workers, engineers, or computer scientists—are important factors in
children’s overall well-being and their chances for success in school
and the job market.19

live with at least one foreign-born parent. In 2008, 58% of all Latino
children lived in immigrant families. Most of the Latino youth in
immigrant families were born in the United States but lived with at
least one foreign-born parent (see Table 1). By comparison, only 12%
of Black youth and 7% of White youth lived in immigrant families
in 2008. The share of Latino children living in immigrant families is
unchanged since 2000. There is also a sizable and growing number of
Latino children living in “mixed-nativity” families in which one parent
is foreign-born while the other was born in the United States. In 2008,
about 10% of all Latino children lived in mixed-nativity families.20

In this report, children in immigrant families are defined as those
under age 18 who were born outside of the United States or who

Latino children in immigrant families are most highly concentrated in
states in the Southeast and on the West Coast. States with the highest

Children in Immigrant Families

7

Map 4
Latino Children in Immigrant Families, 2008

Table 1
Distribution of Latino Children in Immigrant Families by Nativity
Status and Family Type, 2008
Number (000s) Percent
All Latino children

proportions of Latino children in immigrant families include North
Carolina (77%), Maryland (75%), and Georgia (73%) (see Map 4). There
are relatively few Latino youth in immigrant families in the Northeast
(which includes many Puerto Rican families who are U.S. citizens by
birth) and in the Mountain West and Midwest.

decrease), California (four percentage point decrease), and Nevada
(three percentage point decrease). It’s likely that the declining share
of immigrant families in these states reflects the severe job losses and
housing market declines, which has reduced demand for immigrant
workers.

Since 2000, the national share of Latino children in immigrant families
has remained constant at 58%, but many states have experienced
significant changes in this measure. Among states with sizable Latino
youth populations (100,000 or more), Indiana experienced the largest
increase in the share of Latino children living in immigrant families—
an 11 percentage point increase. Several states that have been hit
hard by the recession experienced decreases in the share of Latino
youth in immigrant families, including Florida (five percentage point

Family Structure and Income
The social and economic well-being of all children is largely determined
by their parents’ circumstances. Family structure, parental education,
and income are all key factors that help shape children’s opportunities
and development. Most Latino children live in two-parent families
with at least one parent in the labor force. However, Latino parents
have less education, lower wages, and fewer worker protections, on

8

average, compared with White parents. Although Latino children
make up about one-fifth of the total child population, they account for
one-third of children living in low-income families. During the recent
recession, Latino and Black families have been disproportionately
affected by the housing crisis and unemployment, putting minority
youth further at risk of falling behind their White peers.21

in the share of White and Black youth in single-parent families, but
Latino youth experienced the largest jump since 2000. Rates for Latino
children are still well below those of Black children, two-thirds of
whom (65%) lived in single-parent families in 2008. Since the 1970s,
the rise in single-parent families has been linked to the rising age of
first marriage, an increase in nonmarital births, the rising divorce rate,
and an increase in cohabitation among young adults.23

Family Structure
Children growing up in single-parent families typically do not have
access to the economic resources and “social capital” available to
children growing up in two-parent families.22 In the United States, the
number of single-parent families has risen dramatically over the past
three decades, causing concern among policymakers and the public.
While social and cultural norms—or the presence of a cohabiting
partner—can mediate the effect of single-parent families on children,
Latino children growing up in single-parent families are still at an
economic disadvantage relative to children growing up with both
parents present in the household. Across all racial and ethnic groups,
children living with one parent are more likely to be poor and less likely
to graduate from high school, compared with children in two-parent
families.
The proportion of Latino youth in single-parent families is higher than
the U.S. average and is increasing. In 2008, 38% of Latino children
lived in single-parent families (see Figure 3). This represents a six
percentage point increase over the share in 2000 (32%). In the United
States, the share of all children in single-parent families increased
from 28% to 32% during the same period. There were also increases

Figure 3
Children in Single-Parent Families by Race/Ethnicity,
2000 and 2008

The Northeast United States has relatively high concentrations of
third-and-higher-generation Latino children, who are more likely to
live in single-parent families compared with those who are more
recent arrivals to the United States.24 In 2008, more than 50% of
Latino youth in Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont lived in single-parent families. Rates are
lowest—less than 30%—in several states with relatively small, mostly
first- and second-generation Latino populations, including Alabama,
Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota, and West Virginia (see Map 5).
Nationwide, about 28% of first- and second-generation Latino children
lived in single-parent families, compared with 48% of third-and-highergeneration Latino youth.25

increase is significant because it puts more Latino children at risk of
living in low-income families, which are often associated with singleearner households. However, while Latino children in single-parent
families are clearly more likely to live in poverty than those who live
with both parents, Latino children in two-parent families also have
substantially higher poverty rates than either White or Black children
who live with both parents. This suggests that both single- and twoparent Latino families are struggling to move out of poverty.26

Between 2000 and 2008, the share of Latino children in single-parent
families increased in 42 states and the District of Columbia. This

Low-Income Families
Economic hardship can adversely affect a child’s development in ways
that are fundamental to later success in life. Children growing up in
poor and low-income families have worse health and educational
outcomes, are more likely to experience parental divorce and live in

10

single-parent families, and are more likely to experience violent crime
compared with children growing up in more affluent families.27 For
many children, poverty persists into adolescence and adulthood and
is associated with greater risk of dropping out of school, teenage
parenthood, and lower earnings for young adults.28 Many Latino and
Black children are doubly disadvantaged because they live in highpoverty neighborhoods that are socially and economically isolated
from more affluent communities. In 2007, more than one-third of
Latino children lived in high-poverty neighborhoods (communities with
poverty rates of at least 20%).29

Figure 4
Distribution of Low-Income Children by Race/Ethnicity, 2008
Other
8%

Latino
33%

Typically, children are classified as poor if they live in a family with
yearly income below the official poverty threshold. In 2008, the
poverty threshold for a family of four, including two children, was
$21,834. The low-income threshold is typically defined as 200% of
the poverty threshold, or $43,668 for a four-person family. Poverty
and low-income thresholds are used to determine eligibility for needbased programs, including Head Start, Medicaid, the Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health
Insurance Program, and the National School Lunch Program.
Relatively high employment rates keep most Latino families out of
deep poverty, but many Latino parents, especially first-generation
immigrants from Latin America, work in low-wage service,
manufacturing, and agricultural occupations with few benefits or
worker protections.30 In 2008, 10% of Latino children lived in deep
poverty (below 50% of the poverty threshold), 28% were poor (below
100% of poverty), and 59% were in low-income families (below 200%
of poverty). These rates have held fairly steady since 2000.
The share of Latino youth in low-income families (59%) was about
the same share as Black children (60%), and more than twice the
proportion of White children (27%). While Hispanic children make
up 22% of the total population under age 18, they account for 33% of
children living in low-income families (see Figure 4).

Among states with at least 100,000 Latino youth, North Carolina had
the highest share of Latino children in low-income families in 2008
(73%) (see Map 6). In contrast, roughly two-fifths of Latino youth
in Maryland (41%) and Virginia (40%) lived in low-income families.
Higher Latino family incomes in the Mid-Atlantic states are associated
with high proportions of married-couple families, high levels of
educational attainment and labor force attachment, and a high
proportion of Latinos who speak English in that region.
Michigan, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country,
had a 17 percentage point increase in the share of Latino children in
low-income families between 1999 and 2008. California was among
the states with a drop in low-income families since 1999, which likely

11

Map 6
Latino Children in Low-Income Families, 2008

Another way to assess income disparities is to compare the poverty
gap between Latino children and White children in different states. At
the national level, there is a 17 percentage point difference between
the poverty rates of Whites and Latinos. However, in several states
in New England—Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island—
and Pennsylvania, the poverty gap is 25 percentage points or more.
Maryland and Virginia are among the states with the lowest child
poverty gaps between Whites and Latinos, less than ten percentage
points.
Low-Income Working Families

reflects declining immigration to that state (newer Latino immigrants
tend to have less education and lower incomes relative to longerterm U.S. residents) rather than improving economic conditions.
Between 2000 and 2008, California experienced a four percentage
point drop in the share of Latino children in immigrant families and
a three percentage point decrease in the share of Latino children in
low-income families (from 60% to 57%). Nationwide, the proportion of
Latino children in low-income families stayed about the same between
1999 and 2008.

Working fulltime does not always ensure enough income to provide for
a family’s basic needs. In fact, the majority of low-income families in
the United States include at least one full-time worker.31 Low-income
families often face significant challenges in their efforts to balance
the demands of work and family. Parents with young children need
to find affordable child care while they are at work, but many lowincome parents work multiple jobs or during off-peak hours, making
it difficult to find high-quality, affordable care.32 Low-income working
families devote a higher share of income to housing costs, have less
education, and are also less likely to have employer-sponsored health
insurance, compared with higher-income families.33 Most low-income
workers are employed in low-skilled jobs with few benefits and few
opportunities for advancement.
Low-income working families are defined as those with at least one
parent working 50 or more weeks per year, with income below 200%
of the official poverty threshold. Among children in low-income
families, Latinos and Whites were more likely than Blacks to have
parents who were working. In 2008, there were 9.4 million
low-income Latino youth and 5.9 million (63%) had a parent working

12

Figure 5
Children in Low-Income Families by Parental Employment
Status and Race/Ethnicity, 2008
Not working or working less than 50 weeks
Working 50 + weeks
Number (000s)

year-round. In contrast, there were 6.0 million Black youth in lowincome families, and less than half (49%) had a parent working yearround (see Figure 5).
Overall, nearly two-fifths of Latino children (39%) lived in low-income
working families, compared with 17% of White children and 32% of
Black children. Low-income working families were most common
in the South, where Latinos are more likely to be working in lowwage jobs. In 2008, Arkansas and North Carolina had the highest
proportions of Latino children in low-income working families (55%
each). States with relatively affluent Latino populations, such as
Maryland and Virginia, had relatively low proportions of Latino
children in low-income working families.

Housing Affordability
The concentration of the Latino population in coastal California and
other high-cost urban areas—combined with their relatively low
incomes—puts a large number of Latino families at risk of severe
housing-cost burdens.34 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development considers housing “affordable” if total expenses (rent
or mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, utilities, and other related
payments) account for less than 30% of total household income.
Paying 30% or more of income on housing may leave insufficient
resources to cover other basic expenses, including food, child care, and
health care costs. High housing costs also put homeowners at greater
risk of falling behind on mortgage payments and foreclosure.35 At the
height of the recession, nearly one in ten (9%) Latino homeowners said
they had missed a mortgage payment during the previous year.36
In 2008, more than half of Latino children (53%) lived in unaffordable
housing, compared with 51% of Blacks and 32% of Whites (see Figure 6).
Renters, who tend to have lower incomes, are most at risk of living
in unaffordable housing, but costs have increased substantially for
Latino homeowners in recent years with the rise in homeownership
and mortgage lending among lower-income families.37 During the
pre-recession rise in housing prices, Latinos in many large metropolitan
areas were more than twice as likely as Whites to have high-cost
mortgages.38
A lack of affordable housing has also contributed to Latino families
“doubling up” and living in crowded living conditions. In 2008,
crowding (defined as more than one person per room) occurred in 13%
of Latino-headed households, while only 3% of households nationwide
were identified as being crowded.39

There was a sharp increase in families’ housing-cost burdens across all
racial/ethnic groups between 2000 and 2008, but Latinos experienced
a 16 percentage point increase, more than that of Whites or Blacks.
Despite the decline in home prices during the past few years,
housing-cost burdens have continued to increase—especially among
lower-income homeowners—because of the rise in utility costs and
the inability of many families to refinance high-cost mortgages or sell
their homes.40 Further complicating families’ ability to access decent
and safe housing is the rise of foreclosures. Between 2009 and 2012,

approximately 1.3 million Latino homeowners are expected to lose
their home.41 Children who live in homes that have been foreclosed
are likely to experience a negative disruption in family relationships,
academic performance and resources, and social networks.42
Between 2000 and 2008, there were widespread increases in
unaffordable housing for Latino families across the country (see Map 7).
In 2000, there were no states where the majority of Latino children
lived in unaffordable housing, but by 2008 there were 18 such states.
Among states with at least 100,000 Latino children, Maryland had the
biggest increase in unaffordable housing since 2000 (a 29 percentage
point increase) followed by Georgia and Virginia (23 percentage
points each). Latino children in New Mexico experienced one of the
smallest increases in unaffordable housing (five percentage points).
Among states with sizable Latino populations, California, Connecticut,
Maryland, and New Jersey had the highest shares of Latino youth living
in unaffordable housing in 2008 (more than 60% each).

Education and Language
Education is perhaps the most important factor shaping children’s
health and development. For young children, mothers’ educational
attainment is especially important for language acquisition and school
readiness.43 Parents with more education spend more time reading
to their children, which has positive effects on children’s language
and cognitive skills. Differences in maternal education levels between
White women and Latinas help explain why, by age two, young Latino
children lag behind White children in vocabulary and problem-solving
skills.44 Latino teens continue to lag behind their White peers—with
higher dropout rates and lower test scores—putting Latino youth at a
severe disadvantage in terms of future employment opportunities and
potential earnings.

Maternal Education
In 2008, more than two-fifths of Latino children under age 18 (42%)
lived with mothers who did not graduate from high school. This is
higher than the share of Black children (25%) and more than four
times the percentage of White children (10%). However, maternal
education levels have increased sharply among Latina mothers since
the beginning of the decade, which has reduced the size of the
racial/ethnic education gap. Between 2000 and 2008, there was
a ten percentage point drop in the share of Latino children living
with mothers who did not graduate from high school (see Figure 7),
compared with an eight percentage point drop among Black mothers
and a three percentage point drop among White mothers.

In 2008, states with the lowest levels of maternal education were
located in the South, including Arkansas, Delaware, North Carolina, and
Tennessee (see Map 8). Many Latino parents in these states arrived
in the U.S. with limited education and now face several obstacles to
furthering their schooling, including high levels of residential mobility,
limited understanding about the U.S. school system or continuing
education programs, and limited access to education resources.45
Family responsibilities and high levels of labor force participation
among Latino immigrants also limit the time available to take adult
education classes.

15

Figure 7
Children Living with Mothers Who Did Not Graduate
from High School, 2000 and 2008
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Map 8
Maternal Education Levels of Latino Youth, 2000 and 2008

A. Latino Children Living with Mothers without a High School Diploma, 2000

B. Latino Children Living with Mothers without a High School Diploma, 2008

In 2008, states with higher proportions of U.S.-born Latinos—in the
Northeast and the Northern Great Plains—had among the highest
levels of maternal education (see Map 8). In Florida, which has a large,
well-educated Cuban American population, only 24% of Latino children
lived with mothers who did not graduate from high school.
Between 2000 and 2008, maternal education levels increased in 44
states and the District of Columbia. There were only six states where
maternal education decreased, and all were located in the South:
Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and West
Virginia.

Children’s success in school is also closely tied to their parents’
ability to speak English. Limited English proficiency can limit job
opportunities, earnings, access to health care, and the ability of
parents to interact with the school system or help their children with
homework.46 Although many Latino adults and teens who arrive
in the United States from other countries have difficultly learning
English, most young Latino children grow up learning English as their
primary language. In 2008, 17% of Latino children ages five to 17 had
difficulty speaking English very well. However, nearly one-quarter of
Latino children under age 18 (23%) lived in “linguistically isolated”
households where no one ages 14 years and older spoke English very
well. Children in linguistically isolated households are often called
upon to act as translators for parents or older siblings, which can
create significant stress or lead to misunderstandings about a child’s
level of English-language proficiency.47
In 2008, California had over one million Latino children living in
linguistically isolated households, more than any other state. But
states in the Southeast—with the exception of Florida—had the
highest proportions of children living in such households (see Map 9).
In Alabama, nearly half of all Latino children (47%) were linguistically
isolated.
High School Completion
Because of their strong attachment to the labor force, young Latino
dropouts have relatively high employment rates and earnings
compared to White and Black dropouts.48 In 2008, mean earnings
for 18- to 24-year-old Latinos with nine to 12 years of schooling (no
diploma) was $12,647, compared with $8,373 for White dropouts
and $10,025 for Black dropouts in the same age group.49 However,
dropping out of high school translates into lower lifetime earnings—

up to $400,000 less—compared with those who graduate from high
school.50 Dropouts are also more likely than high school graduates to
end up in prison and have worse health outcomes as adults, even after
controlling for income.51 The prospects for high school dropouts have
even further deteriorated with the economic downturn. Between
2008 and 2009, there was a sharp increase in youth unemployment
rates, and by the beginning of 2010, more than a third of Latino teens
ages 16 to 19 were unemployed.52
Estimates of high school graduation among Latino youth can vary
widely depending on the method and source of data used to make the
calculations. In this report, we use an on-time high school completion
rate developed by staff at the Urban Institute, called the Cumulative

17

Promotion Index (CPI). The CPI provides an estimate of the proportion
of students entering the ninth grade who complete high school on
time with a regular diploma.*
Latino youth are less likely than Whites to complete high school on
time. About 76% of Whites who enter ninth grade complete twelfth
grade on time with a regular diploma, compared with only 55% of
Latino youth and 51% of Black youth. Male youth are less likely than
female youth to complete high school, especially among Latinos and
Blacks (see Figure 8). There is a nine percentage point gap between
the high school completion rate of male and female Latino teens.
Figure 8
High School Student Graduation Rates by Race/Ethnicity
and Gender, 2006
50%

Among states with sizable Latino populations, high school completion
rates are highest in New Jersey (67%) and Maryland (65%) and lowest
in Nevada (36%) and Georgia (41%). Low high school completion rates
have been linked to concentrated poverty and racial/ethnic segregation
in school districts. Nearly 90% of highly segregated schools are in
areas of concentrated poverty with high levels of student turnover, less

qualified teachers, and high concentrations of students with health,
emotional, and behavioral problems.53
Student Achievement
Student achievement in school is an important measure of cognitive
development and ability to communicate and learn.54 One way to
track student progress is through their performance on standardized
tests, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
In 2009, nearly two-fifths of Latino eighth graders (39%) scored “below
basic” reading levels, 44% read at basic levels, 16% were proficient,
and 1% was advanced (see Figure 9).55 Reading scores among Latino
children are comparable to those among Black students, but well
below those of Whites. California and Nevada had among the highest
proportions of Latino youth scoring below basic reading levels, while
Latino students in Florida, Maryland, and Virginia had among the least
in that group.
One of the key challenges for educators is the large and growing
number of Hispanic English language learners (ELLs), who consistently
score lower on standardized tests compared to other demographic
groups.56 Today, there are about five million ELL students in U.S.
schools, and 80% are Spanish-speaking Latinos.57
One way to improve test scores is to promote school readiness
through high-quality early education programs, such as Early Head
Start, which has been shown to improve young children’s literacy
and cognitive development.58 However, Latino children are currently
underrepresented in center-based child care and other pre-kindergarten
programs. In 2005–2006, more than one-fourth (27%) of Latino
four-year-olds lacked regular (nonparental) arrangements for child
care, compared with 18% of White preschoolers and 16% of Black
preschoolers. 59

* The CPI is useful because it does not rely on high school dropout records, which are often unreliable; however, CPI has also been criticized because it does not account for student transfers, grade
retention, or mortality.

Health
The Latino child poverty rate is nearly as high as that of Black children,
yet Latinos have substantially lower infant mortality rates and fewer
babies suffering from low birth weight than do Blacks.60 In the adult
population, researchers have also observed lower-than-expected
rates of mortality and chronic illness among Latinos compared to
other racial/ethnic groups. This phenomenon, often referred to as
the “Hispanic paradox,” has been linked to the health behaviors and

diet of the Latino population, the selectivity of healthy migrants to the
United States, and protective social factors in Hispanic communities
that improve health behaviors, monitoring, and outcomes.61 However,
Latino children are losing ground relative to other racial/ethnic
groups on several important indicators of health and well-being,
including teen pregnancy, childhood obesity, and access to health care.
Policymakers need to address these issues to ensure the health and
productivity of Latino youth as they reach adulthood.
Teen Pregnancy
Teen pregnancies and births can have long-term negative
consequences for both teen mothers and their children. Adolescent
mothers have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, high-risk
pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and dropping out of school,
compared with women who start having children at later ages.62 Most
teen pregnancies are unintended, and children of teen mothers are
more likely to have lower test scores in school, have chronic health and
behavior problems, be incarcerated as a young adult, and become teen
parents themselves.63
The Latina teen pregnancy rate has dropped in recent years but is
higher than that of other racial/ethnic groups (see Figure 10). In 2005,
the Latina teen pregnancy rate (125 pregnancies per 1,000 Latina teens
ages 15 to 19) was nearly three times the rate of non-Hispanic White
teens (43), and slightly higher than that of Black teens (123).64 In 2000,
the pregnancy rate among Black teens was higher than that of Latina
teens, but the Black teen pregnancy rate dropped sharply between
2000 and 2005 and fell below that of Latina teens. The drop in the
teen pregnancy rate may reflect higher rates of contraceptive use as
well as higher proportions of teens who are delaying sex.65 However,
this decline may be temporary; between 2005 and 2006, the teen birth
rate increased—especially among Black teens—after falling steadily for
more than a decade.

19

The Latina teen pregnancy rate is highest—exceeding 200 pregnancies
per 1,000 teens—in several new-frontier states in the South, including
Alabama, Delaware, South Carolina, and Tennessee (see Map 10).* In
Alabama, the Latina teen birth rate (228 pregnancies per 1,000 teens)
was more than four times the rate for White teens (56) and more than
twice the rate for Black teens (95).
Figure 10
Teen Pregnancy Rate by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 and 2005

70

High rates of overweight and obesity put Latino youth at higher risk
of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma, hypertension,
and other health problems.66 Over the past 30 years, the share of
overweight or obese children ages six to 11 has nearly tripled, while
Map 10
Latina Teen Pregnancy Rate, 2005

the rate among adolescents has doubled.67 In 2007, 41% of Latino and
Black children were overweight or obese, compared with 27% of White
children.68 Children ages ten to 17 are classified as being overweight
or obese if their body mass index falls above the eighty-fifth percentile.
Among states with large Latino populations, Washington had the
highest share of Latino youth who were overweight or obese (57%),
followed by Pennsylvania (54%) and Wisconsin (52%). North Carolina
had the lowest rate (28%). Relatively low rates of overweight in the
Southeast may reflect the large number of first- and second-generation
Latino families in those states. The prevalence of obesity among Latino
children has been found to increase with acculturation and the amount
of time spent in the United States, clearly underscoring the need to
consider these processes in designing effective child nutrition and
exercise policies and programs.69
Children without Health Insurance
Lack of access to health care is one of the most serious problems
facing Latino children and families in the United States. Children
without health insurance coverage are less likely to have a regular
source of health care or access to prescription medicine.70 They are
also 18 times more likely than children with continuous private health
coverage to have unmet needs for medical care, putting them at higher
risk of being hospitalized.71
In 2008, 19% of Latino children lacked health insurance, compared
with 10% of Blacks and just 7% of Whites (see Figure 11).72 Among
Latino children who had health insurance, nearly half were covered
through public health insurance programs such as Medicaid or the
Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provide affordable care
for low-income working families. Only 36% of Latino children had
health care through their parents’ jobs. Most Latino children have

secure parental employment (parents working full time, year-round),
but a high proportion of Latino workers are in jobs that do not provide
health insurance coverage and other benefits.73
In 2008, Nevada and Utah had the highest proportions of Latino youth
without health insurance (34% each), followed by Idaho and South
Carolina (30% each). Patterns of health insurance coverage mirrored
those of several other indicators, with relatively high coverage rates in
states with many third-and-higher generation Latino children, and low
coverage rates in states with mostly first- and second-generation Latino
youth (see Map 11). Massachusetts, which passed a bill in 2006 that
required all residents to purchase health insurance, had one of the
highest coverage rates in the country (98%).
Figure 11
Health Insurance Coverage of Children under Age 18, 2008
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Children with a Medical Home
In order to stay healthy, children require periodic visits to health
professionals to monitor physical and cognitive development. Children
who have a regular doctor are more likely to receive preventive,
family-centered, efficient care and less likely to be hospitalized or visit
the emergency room.74
The concept of “medical home” combines several characteristics of
health care in order to define a standard for high-quality medical care.
In the National Survey of Children’s Health, children are classified as
having medical homes if their care meets all of the following criteria:

• The child has a personal doctor or nurse who knows him or her
well and a usual source of sick care.
• The child can get referrals for specialty care and access to
therapies or equipment.
• The family is very satisfied with the communication among their
child’s doctors.
• The family gets help coordinating care when needed.
• The child’s doctors spend enough time with the family, listen to
their concerns, respect their values and customs, provide any
information they need, and make the family feel like a partner in
their child’s care.
• An interpreter is available when needed.75
In 2007, more than three-fifths of Latino children (62%) did not have
a medical home, compared with 56% of Black children and 32% of
White children. Among those states with sizable Latino populations,
the share of Latino children without a medical home was highest—
exceeding 70%—in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Utah, and lowest in
Michigan (46%) and Ohio (39%).76 For many Latino families, the major
barrier to accessing a medical home is their lack of health insurance
coverage.

Juvenile Justice
Incarceration disrupts key life transitions and reduces an individual’s
long-term earning capacity.77 Over their lifetimes, incarcerated youth
will perform worse in school, earn lower wages, experience more
health problems, and are more likely to be imprisoned as adults.78
In 2006, there were more than 19,000 Latino youth in residential
placement facilities in the United States, mostly for nonviolent
offenses.79 However, there is a large gap between the reality and
public perception of Latino youth in the juvenile justice system. In

22

part, this gap may reflect media coverage of juvenile crime, which has
focused heavily on violent offenses, but another major problem is the
lack of comprehensive juvenile justice statistics for the Latino youth
population.*
Unlike the other indicators presented in this report, the juvenile
justice data are unique because there are 51 separate juvenile justice
systems in the United States, each with its own laws and procedures
for handling youth victimization and arrests. The most comprehensive
source for arrest data is the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. However,
the FBI’s database does not break down data for Latino youth. The
National Crime Victimization Survey has been a useful source of data
on crime victimization for special populations, including Latinos and
teenagers. However, the sample size is not large enough to report
state-level estimates.† Latino youth in the juvenile justice system are
too often undercounted or their circumstances are misreported, a
problem that makes them invisible to policymakers and the public.
The numbers that we do have are alarming—better data are urgently
needed so that policymakers can craft appropriate policy responses.
In 2006, incarceration rates were highest among Black males (1,317
per 100,000 youth) and lowest among White females (65 per 100,000
youth). Rates for Latino youth fall between those of Blacks and
Whites, at 560 for males and 80 for females (see Figure 12). Among
all youth in residential placement facilities in 2006, about 39% were
in detention centers, 32% were in long-term secure facilities, 20%
were in group homes, and 10% were in reception/diagnostic centers,
boot camps, shelters, and ranch/wilderness camps.80 However, these
numbers underestimate the actual number of incarcerated youth.

Indeed, a recent report found that one in four incarcerated Latino
youth was held in an adult prison, which is less likely to offer ageappropriate educational, health, and counseling services.81 Based on
current incarceration rates, about one in six Latino males—and one
in three Black males—will be imprisoned at some point during their
lifetimes.82

Figure 12
Youth in Residential Placement Facilities, 2006
Female
Male

Rate per 100,000 youth
65

White

270

200

Black

80

Latino
0

1,317
560

1,000

2,000

Source: Melissa Sickmund, T.J. Sladky, and Wei Kang, “Census of Juveniles in
Residential Placement Databook,” National Center for Juvenile Justice, http://
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp (accessed February 2010); National Center for
Health Statistics, “Bridged-race intercensal estimates of the July 1, 2000–July 1,
2006, United States resident population by county, single-year of age, sex, race, and
Hispanic origin.” U.S. Census Bureau with support from the National Cancer Institute.
Washington, DC, 2007, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/popbridge/
popbridge.htm (accessed September 2009).

* In this report, we present data from the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, a one-day count of juvenile offenders held in residential placement facilities throughout the United States. The
census is intended to enumerate juveniles under age 21 who have been charged with an offense or court-adjudicated for an offense and who have been assigned a bed in a residential facility because
of that offense.
†The Bureau of Justice Statistics is investigating the possibility of increasing the sample size of the National Crime Victimization Survey to produce estimates for some states and metropolitan areas,
according to a presentation given at the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics on September 11, 2009.

23

In 2006, California had the largest number of Latino youth in
residential placement facilities (7,824), but incarceration rates were
highest in parts of the Midwest, Mountain West, and Northeast
(see Map 12). High rates of detention in these regions reflect
their relatively small Latino youth populations, relative to those in
residential placement. For example, South Dakota, which had the
highest incarceration rate in the country, recorded only 30 Latino youth
in residential placement facilities in 2006. Incarceration rates were
lowest in states in the southeastern United States.
Map 12
Latino Youth in Residential Placement Facilities, 2008

Percent

Less than 10%
10% to 19.9%

20% to 29.9%
30% or more

Source: Melissa Sickmund, T.J. Sladky, and Wei Kang, “Census of Juveniles in Residential
Placement Databook,” National Center for Juvenile Justice, http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/
ojstatbb/cjrp/ (accessed February 2010); National Center for Health Statistics, “Bridged-race
intercensal estimates of the July 1, 2000–July 1, 2006, United States resident population by
county, single-year of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin.” U.S. Census Bureau with support
from the National Cancer Institute. Washington, DC, 2007, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
about/major/dvs/popbridge/popbridge.htm (accessed September 2009).

24

Conclusion
This data book takes a broad demographic perspective on the
situation of Latino children in our country, outlining both time trends
and geographic patterns and approaching child well-being from a
comprehensive angle. A more in-depth interpretation of the data
and relationships reported herein must take place within the context
of the larger body of research on the themes outlined, and some of
this research has been cited in previous pages. The wide-ranging
perspective presented here, however, offers a particular contribution
toward supporting policymakers and child advocates who seek to
improve the situation of Latino youth in the U.S. First, the data clearly
highlight the massive demographic shift represented by the current
growth in the Latino child population across the country, showing
more specifically how Latino children have been faring relative to other
American children through time. By looking backward and assessing
the present, these numbers indicate that the future for Latino children
is clearly at great risk, and that a concerted effort to change the course
of negative trends in specific areas is therefore imperative.

attainment, labor force attachment, and specific state-level policies
affecting children are also likely to be contributing to regional and state
differences in Latino child well-being.

In addition to outlining the indicators of Latino child and youth
well-being which are of immediate concern, one of the most significant
stories told by these data is the regional and generational diversity
of Latino child and youth populations throughout the country.
The situation of Latino children often varies by state, region, and
generation. As the data show, Hispanic children in states with large
emerging Latino populations (such as those in the Southeast) which
have a high proportion of first- and second-generation children of
immigrants, often face different issues than Hispanic children in states
or regions with more established Latino populations. However, the
recency of a stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s immigrant population does not explain everything;
for example, children in states such as Maryland and Virginia, which
have a high proportion of first- and second- generation children, fare
significantly better on several economic variables than those in other
states. This suggests that other factors such as Hispanic educational

In addition to highlighting the need for an enhanced commitment
to effective, targeted policies and programs that can reach larger
numbers of Latino children, this report also emphasizes the need to
take a holistic approach to assessing the present and future well-being
of Latino children. Indeed, behind each of the indicators discussed
in this data book lies a range of complex dynamics that take place
every day in homes, schools, hospitals, communities, and streets. For
many Latino children and families, issues of poverty, health, language,
immigration status, education, and juvenile justice are intimately
interrelated and tend to interact in complex ways. The compilation of
this broad range of information on the state of Latino children, which
will be updated by NCLR regularly, is a crucial step toward supporting
national, state-level, and local initiatives that will make a difference in
Latino childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lives and, in doing so, strengthen our national
well-being.

The numbers presented here sound an alarm on the urgency of the
situation for Latino children and suggest the need for further research
into regional and other variations. Nonetheless, it is also clear that
the course signaled by these data can be shifted, with swift and
appropriate interventions. Indeed, NCLR has worked for years on
specific policy recommendations and programs in health, education,
juvenile justice, and poverty reduction, many of which have been
proven to enhance the situation of Latino children when enacted.
Examples include the Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health Insurance Program of 1997,
which by 2004 decreased uninsurance among Hispanic children by
more than 25%, and the reauthorization of Head Start in 2007, which
expanded the program to potentially include an additional 10,700
Latino families.

25

Endnotes
¹ U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual State Resident Population Estimates for 6 Race Groups (5 Race
Alone Groups and One Group with Two or more Race Groups) by Age, Sex, and Hispanic Origin:
April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008.” Washington, DC, 2009, http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.
html (accessed September 2009); National Center for Health Statistics, “Bridged-race intercensal
estimates of the July 1, 1990–July 1, 1999, United States resident population by county, singleyear of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin.” U.S. Census Bureau with support from the National
Cancer Institute. Washington, DC, 2004, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/bridged_race/data_
documentation.htm#inter1 (accessed September 2009).
² M.K. Shields and R.E. Behrman, “Children of Immigrant Families: Analysis and
Recommendations,” The Future of Children 14, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 4–15.
³ U.S. Census Bureau, “Projected Population by Single Year of Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin
for the United States: July 1, 2000 to July 1, 2050.” Washington DC, 2009, http://www.census.
gov/population/www/projections/downloadablefiles.html (accessed September 2009).
⁴ These 2008 figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program. Note that
demographers and others are waiting for the results from the 2010 Decennial Census to provide a
more complete picture of Latino population change since 2000.
⁵ Joyce A. Martin et al., “Births: Final Data for 2006,” National Vital Statistics Reports 57, no. 7,
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD,
2009, www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf (accessed December 2009).
⁶ Audrey Singer, Susan W. Hardwick, and Caroline B. Brettell, Twenty-First Century Gateways:
Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,
2009).
⁷ U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual State Resident Population Estimates for 6 Race Groups (5 Race
Alone Groups and One Group with Two or more Race Groups) by Age, Sex, and Hispanic Origin:
April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008.” Washington, DC, 2009, http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.
html (accessed September 2009).
⁸ Richard Fry and Jeffrey S. Passel, Latino Children: A Majority Are U.S.-Born Offspring of
Immigrants (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2009), http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1235/
latino-children-immigrants-american-born (accessed January 2010).
⁹ The Urban Institute, Children of Immigrants: Facts and Figures (Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute, 2006) www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900955_Children_of_Immigrants.pdf (accessed
February 2010).
¹⁰ Ajay Chaudry et al., Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement
(Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2010).

¹¹ Jonathan Baum et al., In the Child’s Best Interest: The Consequences of Losing a Lawful
Immigrant Parent to Deportation (Berkeley and Davis, CA: University of California School of Law,
2010).
¹² Pew Hispanic Center, Between Two Worlds: How Young Latinos Come of Age in America
(Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, 2009), http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/117.pdf
(accessed January 2010).
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ Leif Jensen, New Immigrant Settlements in Rural America: Problems, Prospects, and Policies,
Carsey Institute Reports on Rural America 1, no. 3 (Durham, NH: Carsey Institute, University of
New Hampshire, 2006).
¹⁵ National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, “Citizenship and Civic Engagement,” Migration
Policy Institute, www.migrationinformation.org/integration/citizenship.cfm (accessed January
2010).
¹⁶ U.S. Census Bureau, “American FactFinder,” 2008 American Community Survey. Washington, DC,
2009, http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed February 2010), Table B05003I.
¹⁷ Majority Are U.S.-Born Offspring of Immigrants.
¹⁸ 2008 American Community Survey, Table B03001.
¹⁹ Mark Mather, Children in Immigrant Families Chart New Path, PRB Reports on America
(Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, 2009).
²⁰ Population Reference Bureau analysis of the 2008 American Community Survey Public Use
Microdata Sample. The estimate of Latino children in mixed-nativity families does not include the
relatively small number of Latino children who were born outside of the United States but have
parents with mixed-nativity status.
²¹ Linda A. Jacobsen and Mark Mather, “U.S. Economic and Social Trends Since 2000,” Population
Bulletin 65, no. 1 (Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, 2010).
²² Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994).
²³ “U.S. Economic and Social Trends Since 2000.”